Monday, September 12, 2016

During his first official visit to Bangladesh, Secretary of State John Kerry held a press conference and addressed the threat of terrorism.
Kerry offered a novel way to combat terrorism, suggesting that the media would “do us all a service” if they didn’t cover it “quite as much.

Kerry, who proposed himself and was awarded a Purple Heart for 'a hangnail', (actually a scratch, when he fired an M79 Grenade Launcher at a non-target which was too close, and suffered a slight wound from his own round) has chosen to exercise the duties of his office as Secretary of State by placing the blame for the world's Terrorism Woes on the media ... he sees the problem not as an indication of too much violence by terrorists, but too much coverage by the press.

In the meantime, Kerry has nothing to offer as a resolution to the world-wide problem of terrorism.

Well, that's not his job, is it?

“No country is immune from terrorism," Kerry said at a press availability in Dhaka, Bangladesh, on Monday. "It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

Since Kerry seems to think that his job is too hard, perhaps President Obama might consider finding some one who is 'fit to command'. Certainly, some idiot who thinks the 'solution' is for the public to not "know what's going on" doesn't strike most readers as someone who has proposed a real solution for a problem which he doesn't even understand.

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations John Bolton reacted on America's Newsroom, slamming Kerry's comments:
“If you really think that less publicity would help reduce the terrorist threat, then really after you should apply for a job after you are secretary of state to be editor-in-chief of “The Onion”,” Bolton said, referring to the satirical newspaper.

There is an unsubstantiated rumor going around that Kerry applied for a job with "The Onion", but his application was rejected as being insufficiently credible.

DELAWARE, Ohio — Donald J. Trump is not popular in this prospering county north of Columbus. The Republican nominee’s dystopian language does not resonate here. Signs that read “Now Hiring” outnumber “Trump” campaign placards. But many residents of this reliably Republican county, which last voted for a Democratic president in 1916, simply cannot imagine voting for Mr. Trump’s Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton. And that goes a long way toward explaining why she has struggled to separate herself from Mr. Trump in this bellwether state.

I don't blame the good citizens of Red Ohio County for their dyslexic choices in the upcoming Presidential Election.

I guess it depends on which dystopian choices you find least impalpable ... and which candidate you choose to represent those choices.

Educating children by the hypnopaedic process, which provides each with appropriate subconscious messages to mould the child's self-image appropriate to their caste.

Discouragement of critical thinking.

Discouragement of individual action and initiative

An abundance of material goods. However (presumably because of advanced technology) conditions of work are not onerous, in contrast to the contemporaryMetropolis in which the workers are forced to arduous exertions. To maintain the World State's command economy, citizens are conditioned to promote consumption (and hence production) with platitudes such as "ending is better than mending".

In "1984", the choices are subtly different ... but perhaps not SO different:

The problem is .. which dystopian world should be assigned to which current candidate?
It's a vexing question, and your choice would be as private as your vote.

BOTH worlds discourage "Critical Thinking" (sound familiar?).

CLINTON's Democratic background seems to lean toward "abundance of material goods" in that the welfare society is one of the mainstays THE Mainstay of the Democratic party; pointing toward the "Brave New World" schematic.

For myself, if I HAD to make a choice, I would consider Hillary Clinton as the Avatar of that 'party'.

TRUMP's isolationism seems more of the "1984" variety, although the "... privileged elite of the Inner Party ..." resonates for both candidates. However, while the "Cult of Personality seems to be critical to both candidates, I'm inclined to nudge that caste toward Trump more than Clinton for the sole reason that Clinton at least has a history in Government, while Trump has nothing more than his financial success and his personality. (Such as it is ... and it isn't much!)

Still, you need to weigh "English Socialism" on his side, as Trump is on the record as resistant to non-english-speaking-peoples emigrating freely to America.

On the other hand, "1984" promotes a Socialistic Society, which is much more congruent to Clinton than Trump.

Or is it? I'm not sure, but I wouldn't trust either of them if they were given the reins of power.

Not to suggest that EITHER CANDIDATE HAS A PERSONALITY ... at least in the sense that you would want to take them home to meet your mother!

But BIG BROTHER is all about Trump; not saying he's a bully, but Clinton seems much more ... nuanced ... in her drive toward Total Thought Control.

And she is quite as much of a bully as Trump, except she seems more comfortable in that role. Let's put that down to 'experience'; after all, she bullied President Bill Clingon Clinton for eight years (although with little success in suppressing his excesses.)

=========

So there you have it.

Clinton is the "Brave New World" candidate, while Trump is the "1984" Candidate.

Or the other way around; it doesn't much matter, because if you just watch their lips you see that Trump is the liar with the fat lips, and Clinton is the liar with the thin lips.

I see both candidates as One Giant Step Forward toward a Dystopian Society, and I don't like it at all, at all, at all.

Any group of responsible individuals which can't find a reason to vote for either candidate has my sincere appreciation for their judgement, and my great sorrow for their lack of choices.

Oh, and why oh WHY, in this nation of nearly a billion peoples, can we not find Presidential Candidates which are not only electable, but admirable?My Dear God, have we sunk this low?

The NRA is making a (relatively) Big Splash on recent state efforts to require that every bullet, and every cartridge case, carry an unique serial number which (supposedly) can lead crime investigators to identify the person who purchased the ammunition used in a crime.

I say "supposedly', because the proposal has exactly zero chance of (a) aiding crime investigators and (b) being enacted for any purpose other than infringing on America's Second Amendment.

America's 1st Freedom | The Truth About Illinois’ Ammo Serial Numbering Scheme: Do you like to hunt or shoot? If so, hang onto your wallet, because ammunition could soon become prohibitively expensive if some Democrat lawmakers get their way. An Illinois state representative wants to impose a scheme that’s not only been proven to be a multi-million-dollar failure at solving crimes, but could also make ammunition unaffordable for honest citizens*, while leaving criminals—who make millions dealing drugs, guns and (if this legislation is passed) ammunition—untouched. And don’t just shrug if you don’t live in Illinois: As Fox News reports, similar bills are pending in at least 20 states.

The curious thing is, this isn't the first time this proposal has been aired. And back in 2008, when it first was caught in the spotlight, I spent some serious blogging time exploring the whys and the wherefores.

Here is a link to my accumulated list of blog articles. It's long, because the subject is complex, but it might mention a few issues which haven't been mentioned in a brief NRA warning message. (Feel free to skim through it; not all of the issues are mentioned in only a single article.)

Here's a brief summary:

It would be financially impossible for ammunition manufacturers to reliable encode each bullet with the case bearing the same unique identifying number ... let's call it "ID" for simplicity.*

Packaging at the plant would be a vital, yet labor-intensive step because if one bullet/case combination got into a package with a different ID, the manufacturer would (probably) be liable to civil suit in case one round was used during the commission of a crime, and the wrong person was arrested based on this scheme.*

Even that is a "mega-event', because the technology to match a bullet with the case bearing the same ID is not currently available.*

...WHICH IS EVEN MORE complex, because the original scheme proposed that the bullet would have the ID engraved on the BASE of the bullet ... which suggests that the "Quality Control Survey" would necessarily take place before the bullet was loaded into the case. So much for Mass Production Technology.*

The cost of such intensive quality control and inspection* (remember these are tiny little numbers, even it can be made to happen with the machinery) would require minutes per round, rather than the less-than-a-second progress which modern manufacturing technology provides.

The cost of the complete cartridge would therefore be magnified* by a factor of .. oh, a thousand? A two-cent cartridge would cost you two dollars, because bullshit-factor.

Ultimately, manufacturers of complete ammunition would refuse to upset their entire industry, and therefore their ammunition would NOT be sold to states with this kind of absurd legal requirements.

WHICH IS THE POINT OF THE EXERCISE!

These states aren't trying to "Solve Crimes"*; they're trying to do an end-run on the Second Amendment of the Constitution.

(PS: What happens when you reload your own ammunition? In 'these states', there's a bit of a problem because you can't GET bullets with the same serial number as the cartridge case you're reloading!)

I'm pretty sure this is what the NRA is saying in their article, but they can't go into such fine detail as I can because (a) they're professionals, and (b) they assume everyone else can figure it out for themselves, and (c) they hope their warning-article will be read.